Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Written Evidence


Evidence submitted by Zoe Baril, WhatleyRecordon (LAR 91)

  I have considered in detail the consultation documentation relating to the proposed changes to fee structures in public law children proceedings, and have discussed this with our Managing Partner.

  It is fair to say that if the proposals put forward by Lord Carter are put into effect by the LSC then it will become impossible for this firm to continue taking on public law children work, as the fees proposed (even in their amended form) would render it completely uneconomic so to do. I have spoken personally to a number of solicitors in Worcestershire who are currently engaged in this work, and I have found no-one who would be prepared to do the work under the new scheme, irrespective of the size of their firm, their level of seniority or the nature of their overall workload.

  I have worked in the field of public law children proceedings for the past 13 years, in London, Coventry and Worcestershire; and in both local government and private practice. I am a member of the Law Society Children Panel and I am currently working in private practice in Malvern, Worcestershire. Therefore, I consider that I have a level of experience of this area of work which enables me to make some comment that may be useful to the Commission in considering the way forward.

  In my view, it is not the level of fees or the way in which these are costed that needs to be reviewed, as the priority for reducing overspend in this area. Instead, what should be done is to look carefully at the way that the Court system operates. By and large, solicitors working in this field are highly efficient and motivated to achieve the correct outcome for children and families who are made subject to care proceedings. As profit margins are already incredibly low (by comparison with privately funded work), work is undertaken on the basis of necessity rather than choice; and there appears in my experience to be very little in the way of extraneous or unnecessary correspondence. However, the nature of most clients in the field is such that a considerable amount of time and effort is needed to take instructions and prepare documentation, bearing in mind that issues such as mental health and learning difficulties, as well as drug and alcohol related problems are often a feature.

  If one could find a weakness in the system in terms of efficiency, it must lie with the Courts. It is so often the case that parties are required to travel a great distance to Court (in the provinces at least) and are then faced with a Court list that inevitably results in long delays and difficulties in resolving matters speedily. For example, I was recently required to travel to Redditch on a Malvern case that should have been heard in Worcester. Therefore, all four solicitors were obliged to travel an extra 45 miles each (hence 180 miles) to Court than would otherwise have been necessary, purely because the Court had been unable to list the matter at the local Court. The net effect of that was that the time engaged (and thus funded by the LSC) was far more significant than necessary. This is not an isolated incident and this is merely one example of many I could cite.

  Even where hearings are held at the Court local to the parties involved in the case in question, the shortage of judiciary in our local County Court is such that the lists tend to be overloaded and there is often considerable difficulty in listing matters expeditiously; and even final hearings are often delayed in starting due to overlisting. This has been the case in all the areas of the country in which I have worked. However, I do know that solicitors are mindful of listing problems when timetabling cases and do their best to work co-operatively with Court staff. Ultimately, none of this is within the control of solicitors.

  Care work is highly stressful and demanding given the type of clients involved and the issues which all concerned are forced to confront on a daily basis. At present this work is undertaken by a group of practititioners who do so for limited reward and without any form of funded therapeutic support (unlike other professionals such as the police). The arguments as to cost levels are not, in my view, about what is profitable and what is less so. Instead, under the current proposals, I reiterate that the work will become impossible for firms like mine to take on. That will leave parents and children without representation, and thus there will in effect no longer be any check or balance on the actions of local authorities in care proceedings as there is under the current system. This will have the effect of depriving clients of access to justice in an area in which they desperately need representation to protect their ECHR rights.

  Consequently, I would ask you to reconsider the current funding proposals; and I would be happy to provide further information should you so require

October 2006



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 1 May 2007